Skip to content

Help us get it right

Sign in (free) to send feedback, so we can tell you when it's fixed.

Other · Ofsted letter

Setting

Inspected — · published 10 Jul 2009

Help us get it right

Sign in (free) to send feedback, so we can tell you when it's fixed.

Original PDF ↗

Summary

No overall grade in this framework

Tanya Harber Stuart

What we read, and from where

Click a reading to see it highlighted in the report.

  • Inspectorssingle source

    Tanya Harber Stuart

  • Postcode verified

    BB3 0AA

Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of the report

Deep dive

What this report says

In plain English

Join free to get a short, plain-English summary of any report.

Tone of the report

How positive or critical the inspectors' language is, from the words they chose. No AI involved.

+74Very positivemore positive than 93% of reports of this type

Reads more warmly than most reports of this type.

Praisesafefeel safeeffectiveeffectivelypositiverobust

How the report reads, start to finish

Every paragraph in order, sized by length. Tap one to see it on the page.

FindingsAbout the inspectionLeadershipWhat needs to improve positive critical
  • Findings435w+67
  • Leadership79w0
  • What needs to improve112w+50

Strengths

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

No standout praise found.

Concerns

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

No strong criticism found.

Next steps

Quoted from the report. Tap to see it on the page.

What the report dwells on

Topics by how often they come up, coloured by how they are described. Open one for an example.

Anatomy of the report

How the report is built, against others of the same type and grade.

Pages
3
Words of findings
609
shorter than usual (typical 963)
Reading level
Hard
Flesch 49, typical 48
Average sentence
17 words
Next steps
3
typical 2
Hedged sentences
5%
“some”, “not always”, “most”…

Where the words go

Findings 56%Leadership 10%What needs to improve 14%About the inspection 19%

Full report text

Alexandra House 33 Kingsway London WC2B 6SE T 08456 404040 F 020 7421 6855 www.ofsted.gov.uk enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk

p.1

Mrs A Grundy Headteacher St Edward’s Roman Catholic Primary School Blackburn Road Darwen Lancashire BB3 0AA

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

Thank you for your hospitality and co-operation, and that of your staff, during my visit on 13 May 2009 to look at work in E-safety.

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

As outlined in my initial letter, this visit looked at:  the extent to which schools teach learners to adopt safe and responsible practices in using new technologies  e-safety training for staff.

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

The visit provided valuable information which will contribute to our national evaluation and reporting. Published reports are likely to list the names of the contributing institutions but individual institutions will not be identified in the main text. All feedback letters will be published on the Ofsted website at the end of each half-term.

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

The evidence used to inform the judgements made included interviews with staff and pupils, scrutiny of relevant documentation and interviews involving the local authority and governors.

p.1

Ofsted survey inspection programme – E-safety

The overall effectiveness of e-safety was judged to be satisfactory.

p.1

Outcomes for learners

 The pupils are safe, and feel safe, when using new technologies in the school.  Pupils know and understand what they need to do to keep themselves safe. Your simple, but effective, motto of ‘think before you click’ is understood by pupils of all ages. The knowledge and understanding pupils have is appropriate to their age, for example those pupils at Key Stage 2 were able to discuss the dangers of emails and viruses as well as express their understanding of ‘stranger danger’.  All the pupils spoken to put into practice what they have learnt. This includes when they are accessing the internet from games consoles, handheld technologies and computers.  The pupils have learnt how to stay safe from the school, their visits to the city learning centre and from their parents. However those pupils who have not benefited from visiting the city learning centre have less well developed knowledge and understanding than their peers.

p.1

Outcomes for learners

 Pupils in Year 6 who have handheld technology have had much guidance on their use. Parents have also been involved and all were aware, before the handheld technology was given out, about the dangers and benefits.

p.2

Quality of provision

The quality of the curriculum is satisfactory.

p.2

Quality of provision

 You introduced a new ICT curriculum in September 2008, this included new teaching and learning on e-safety. This curriculum ensures that the pupils are aware of the dangers and benefits of using new technologies.  The pupils also benefit from assemblies on e-safety. These have highlighted the issues that they face and how they can cope with them.  However the curriculum is not embedded and some pupils are not benefiting fully from it.

p.2

Leadership and management

Leadership and management are satisfactory.

p.2

Leadership and management

 You have in place an e-safety development plan. Although this highlights the activities which will take place to enhance e-safety it does not focus specifically on how those activities will improve the outcomes for pupils.  Acceptable user policies are in place, and are agreed with staff and pupils.  Governors have ratified the e-safety policy. You recognise that this policy needs to be monitored, evaluated and reviewed to ensure its continued effectiveness.

p.2

Quality of training

The quality of the training is satisfactory.

p.2

Quality of training

 All staff are involved in e-safety training. This involved a whole school session in September 2008 which covered the aspects of e-safety in the new ICT curriculum. Some staff have attended training provided by the local authority, others have received more informal training in school.  As a result of the training the staff are more aware of the dangers and benefits of using new technologies and this means that they have been able to guide and support the pupils more effectively.  However you have recognised that the training has been ad hoc. Although the pupils are safe, you are aware of the need to introduce a more formal and systematic approach to staff training on e-safety.

p.2

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, included:

 embedding the e-safety curriculum to enable all pupils to develop good knowledge and understanding  developing the leadership and management of e-safety to ensure that the policies and practice have a positive impact on outcomes for pupils  putting in place a systematic and robust training system to develop the knowledge and understanding of all staff.

p.3

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, included:

I hope these observations are useful as you continue to develop e-safety in the school.

p.3

Areas for improvement, which we discussed, included:

As I explained in my previous letter, a copy of this letter will be sent to your local authority and will be published on the Ofsted website. It will also be available to the team for your next institutional inspection.

p.3

Discuss this inspection

Members compare notes on inspectors and inspections here. Join free to read and post.

Join the discussion